Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[turbobloke]

julian64 said:

Then after twenty years of contributions it said. Hey you know what, we are running out of money and would like to make cuts.

GP not JD (not sure) but maintaining the politicised theme of JDs lately...

Without making assumptions, which government ran out of money and which wanted to make cuts?

Also if a previous position becomes unsustainable, should responsibly-minded governments ignore the growing problem and leave as-is indefinitely to the point of serious implications then collapse? What else can be done?

There are some clues around.

Average GP salary in dispensing practices reached £128k in 2005 after 31% rise, the figure for non-dispensing practice GPs back then was £102k average.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6157219.stm

2008 NHS productivity falls under Labour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...

May 2010 Liam Byrne is sorry there's no money left.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/...

24 November 2015 Osborne injects £3.8bn to help reduce NHS financial pressure.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/23/geo...

[BigMon]

sidicks said:

I agree no such thing - both need to be done.

Yes, I thought you might.

Please summarise (and leave pensions out of it this time please, it's just white noise with respect to this thread about junior doctors contracts) why you believe, in the face of all the arguments against it, why junior doctors contracts need to been renegotiated.

Both you and turbobloke might also like to outline your extensive NHS employment history too so we can understand why your viewpoints are more valid than a large percentage of the medical profession.

Please note the following 'get out of jail free cards' have already been used. 'I have been in a hospital so understand the issues'. 'It's all a leftist conspiracy, and they've poisoned the minds of Tory voters too.'

[sidicks]

BigMon said:

Yes, I thought you might.

Please summarise (and leave pensions out of it this time please, it's just white noise with respect to this thread about junior doctors contracts) why you believe, in the face of all the arguments against it, why junior doctors contracts need to been renegotiated.

All contracts need to be renegotiated to meet the new requirements of the NHS. What it does and how it does it needs to be radically re-thought.

How the available money is spent is a fundamental part of that.

BigMon said:

Both you and turbobloke might also like to outline your extensive NHS employment history too so we can understand why your viewpoints are more valid than a large percentage of the medical profession.

Perhaps you can also ask the NHS employees what their extensive experience of pensions is - they feel compelled to make claims that demonstrate a massive lack of understanding...

BigMon said:

Please note the following 'get out of jail free cards' have already been used. 'I have been in a hospital so understand the issues'. 'It's all a leftist conspiracy, and they've poisoned the minds of Tory voters too.'

There is no money left - changes need to be made.

[turbobloke]

BigMon said:

sidicks said:

I agree no such thing - both need to be done.

Yes, I thought you might.

Please summarise (and leave pensions out of it this time please, it's just white noise with respect to this thread about junior doctors contracts)...

Clearly it isn't wholly separable but I'm not in a position to speak for sidicks who may well be along shortly.

[BigMon]

sidicks said:

There is no money left - changes need to be made.

Yes, they do. I agree with you there.

However, the changes required are so substantial they are never going to be implemented in one giant bombshell. The NHS needs root and branch reform.

This doesn't appear to be taking place though. Why start with junior doctors and not tackle all the other areas of waste first?

[sidicks]

woowahwoo said:

You really paid over 30% of your salary in to a public sector pension? I thought it was something like 5% in NHS for medical professionals?

Contributions of 5% for those earning up to £15,431.99 increasing to 14.5% for those earning over £111,377.00

[sidicks]

woowahwoo said:

Yes, but has it gone up or down in the time that Julian has been paying in to it? I presume, 14% was an increase in 2008, so for the majority of his time paying, it must have been less. Certainly not 33%

As per my previous post, the rules for GPs are different (but still nowhere near 33% I don't think). Happy to be proved wrong if 'Julian' can evidence his claims...!

[Dixy]

sidicks said:

when the OP decided that the NHS needed to be 'saved', but then refused to explain what or who the NHS needed to be save from.

HTH

Being saved was an fixation of turbo not mine, all I asked was for people to sign the petition and pass it on. If you could be bothered to read what others write you may get the answers you claim to seek, try reading my post on page 23.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Use the 'surplus' to start and grow pension funds.

It's not a genuine surplus.
The money is needed to pay existing benefits.

Hence the single quotes. The sum of money paid in for number of years was larger that money needed to pay out. That money, that could have been used to seed a fund and at some switch to non-payg model. But we did discuss this to death. Hunt's proposals don't include switching from payg to non-payg model, and as such irrelevant to this thread. If anything, if what Hunt says that vast majority of doctors would see pay increase, that would only increase further pension liability.

sidicks said:

The NHS can't continue as is - funding has increased massively over the last 10-15 years, yet some people are still spouting nonsense that it needs 'saving'.

I've explained my opinion on 'saving'. As for funding increased, it's only meaningful in context of provision of services. If the ceo of Circle is to be believed, while they were looking after Hitchinsbroke, the increase in requirement for provision of services was the main reason for pulling out. The figure was 30% year on year.

sidicks said:

Fact is, there needs to be s a fundamental rethink about what the NHS does (and what it can no longer afford to do). In order to improve services we need to ensure that any increased funding goes towards providing services not subsidising hugely generous pensions.

Irrelevant for this thread as IIRC proposed JDs contract doesn't look into providing more sustainable pensions.

Anything on where are you going to get those extra doctors needed to fill existing and provide support for additional services? Anything whatsover on 15% vs 11% cost neutrality?

Edited by jjlynn27 on Tuesday 24th November 10:57

[Downward]

woowahwoo said:

Yes, I realise that after reading a couple of new articles. However, Julian mentions paying a "third" of his salary for "twenty years" until the rules were changed, so I am wondering what his actual figures are. It can't be above, or even at 14%, because that is the top-rate and it only came in around 2008. Is he confusing the value of the pension (as supplemented by the tax payer, I presume), with his contribution?

He must mean his contributions have gone up 33% or rather his % contributions have gone up 33% because no one pays 33% contributions.

I think he is basically saying 20 years ago I paid X into a pension worth Y.

Now I pay X + 33% for pension Y.

[IanA2]

http://bma.org.uk/support-at-work/pensions/prepari...

[JagLover]

Apparently Osbourne is going to put in another £6bn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12012802/Georg...

I'm curious does the NHS need to be "saved" from more spending, or does it need to be "saved" from efforts to ensure extra resources aren't all swallowed up by staff pay and benefits?

[mph1977]

JagLover said:

Apparently Osbourne is going to put in another £6bn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12012802/Georg...

I'm curious does the NHS need to be "saved" from more spending, or does it need to be "saved" from efforts to ensure extra resources aren't all swallowed up by staff pay and benefits?

1. needs to be saved from waste

2. needs to be saved from creating 'manager' posts to do secretarial work , needs secretarial support for people who are supposedly in clinical leadership positions

[ukbabz]

This was on radio 4 this morning, and there was a representative from the NHS complaining that this didn't go far enough. They quoted that the "NHS inflation" figure for costs is around 4% per annum, so although they're getting more it's not enough to maintain this 4% growth so it's a cut..

The mental gymnastics going on there is insane. I think the NHS is great, however it really does need a tight rein on finances..

[julian64]

sidicks said:

Which public sector scheme are you in that has employee contribution rates of 33%??

Not to hijack the thread but you keep making the same mistake. I am not an employee of the public sector.
All GP's in this country are self employed, effectively self contracted with one contract making about 85% of our income.

Only half the work I do in a day is seeing patients, the other half is running a business.

Remember therefore I pay both employers and employees contributions to the scheme.

[IanA2]

julian64 said:

sidicks said:

Which public sector scheme are you in that has employee contribution rates of 33%??

Not to hijack the thread but you keep making the same mistake. I am not an employee of the public sector.
All GP's in this country are self employed, effectively self contracted with one contract making about 85% of our income.

Only half the work I do in a day is seeing patients, the other half is running a business.

Remember therefore I pay both employers and employees contributions to the scheme.

Julian, for goodness sake don't allow facts to interfere with ill-informed fantasies......

[IanA2]

Four interesting charts here:


http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/four-charts-...

[wolves_wanderer]

julian64 said:

Not to hijack the thread.

You aren't the one who hijacked it

[KarlMac]

IanA2 said:

Four interesting charts here:


http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/four-charts-...

I'd like to see a chart that maps out how much each country spends on its health care service. My guess is that we'd be quite high on that list (and that is a genuine guess)

I'm not convinced throwing more money at the nhs is the best thing for everyone involved

[IanA2]

KarlMac said:

IanA2 said:

Four interesting charts here:


http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/four-charts-...

I'd like to see a chart that maps out how much each country spends on its health care service. My guess is that we'd be quite high on that list (and that is a genuine guess)

I'm not convinced throwing more money at the nhs is the best thing for everyone involved

The best measure is the percentage of GDP. Some details here:

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-a...